Allied Occupation Zones In Germany Puns

What if, instead of the British, French, and American zones uniting into West Germany, each one stayed independent, making four German nations rather than two. Would the British one join the Commonwealth? Would all four unite after the Cold War?

After the end of WW2 - in order to avoid further tensions - an agreement was reached which allowed USSR to keep the entirety of East Germany, including the entire city of Berlin.

That means:

•No Berlin airlift

•No high amounts of western cultural influence on Berliners

•No Stand-off between Soviet and U.S. tanks in October 1961

Would the Cold War change significantly by this? Will the fate of the entire Germany - whether unified or not - change? Or will the outcome be simply the same as in our timeline.

Despite the short era of cooperation between the west and the USSR during the second world war, it seems that once more they drift to becoming enemies. In no place is this more apparent than Germany. As tensions between the former allies rise, the hopes many have of a united Germany begin to fall. With every passing moment, each minute where the Allies and the USSR drift farther and farther apart, does the future of Germany seem more and more uncertain.

My goals in claiming (what OTL became) West Germany are probably fairly obvious. I want to take the occupation zones, in this war-ravaged land, and rebuild into a prospering and powerful nation once more. Though it's not exactly an amazingly reachable goal since we're starting all the way in '49, I'd also like to try a little more for a united Germany, whether that be western, soviet or neutrally aligned.

After the end of World War II, why was the Allied Occupation of Japan focused much more around "reconciliation" and much more lenient when compared to the Allied Occupation of Germany, which seemed more focused on punishing Germany and re-shaping German society?

The Allies did impose reforms upon Japan, notably, the post-surrender amendments to her Constitution, the trial of the Japanese architects of the war and the execution and imprisonment of those convicted, and the payment of reparations to most of the Allies of the Pacific War.

But on the whole, it seems like the Allied occupation of Japan was much more lenient when compared to that of Germany. Unlike Germany, Japan was not divided into "Occupation Zones" which were each occupied by a different country, the Government of Japan remained intact, albeit subject to the authority of the Allied Occupation Authorities, unlike Germany where the Allied Occupation Authorities dissolved the German Government after the German Surrender, and there was no real equivalent of "de-Nazification" in Japan like in Germany.

So why was there such a difference in occupation policies?

From 1945 to '49 which of the three western occupation zones was the most prosperous, and which the least - British, French or American? Was there any differences in how they were administered, or were they all done fairly similarly? Did the citizens themselves have any thoughts as to which of the three they preferred?

Thanks in advance.

Why, during the Occupation of Germany following the surrender in 1945, did the Western Allies (U.S., U.K., and France) largely give up on the whole "de-nazification" process after about 1947 or '48?